Gujarat Court November 1978 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dhobi Raheman Pirbhai (Decd.) by His Heirs and Lrs. Pirbhai Raheman an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR511
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant for recovering possession of the suit premises on the ground of arrears of rent. The defendant had been in arrears for about two years. In reply to the statutory notice of demand served upon him, be disputed the standard rent. He denied the plaintiff's claim. The learned trial Judge held that the case was not governed by Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act but that it was governed by Section 12(3)(b), He also held that the terms of Section 12(3)(b) were complied with by the defendant and that, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to decree for possession. In that view of the matter, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The plaintiff appealed against that decree to the District Court. The learned appellate Judge held that the case was governed by Section 12(3)(a) and that the plaintiff was entitled to decree for possession. He, therefore, reversed the decree passed by the learned trial Judge and passed ...
Kasamkhan Rasulkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-08-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR542
B.J. Divan, C.J.1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Collector of Bulsar confiscating truck No. GTY-3865 belonging to the petitioner, and he has also challenged the order of the Sessions Judge, Bulsar at Navsari, confirming the order of confiscation. He has further challenged the order of the Government of Gujarat in the Civil Supplies Department refusing to interfere with the order of confiscation. The order of the Collector of Bulsar is Annexure 'A' to the petition. This order of the Sessions Judge is Annexure 'B' to the petition and the order of the State Government is Annexure 'D' to the petition. The petitioner has also challenged the vires of Section 6A (1)(c) under which the Collector has got the power to confiscate the vehicle which is use 1 for the purpose of contravening any of the provisions of an order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.2. The facts leading to this petition are ...
Super Diamond Tools Vs. the State of Gujarat
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: [1980]46STC129(Guj)
Desai, J.1. This reference made by the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') at the instance of the assessee under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), raises the question of interpretation of the word 'rods' in entry 27 of Schedule II-Part A of the Act. In order to appreciate the question which arises for determination, it would be necessary to set out a few facts. 2. The assessee is a firm holding registration certificate under the Act. It deals in goods or articles meant for use in the diamond industry. Amongst the goods or articles in which the assessee deals are included what are described by the assessee as copper bars or pieces of copper bars of nine-gauge size. These copper bars or pieces of copper bars, according to the assessee, are used as spare parts or accessories in the machinery used for polishing diamonds. The part of the machinery in which the aforesaid goods or articles are used is known as 'ang...
State of Gujarat Vs. K. Madhavan
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-03-1978
Reported in: (1979)1GLR633
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Even a stone will be shocked by the ridiculously low and unduly lenient sentence imposed by the learned trial Magistrate upon a plea of guilty being made by the Manager of a Factory to a charge under Section 92 of the Factories Act in regard to failure to securely fence a dangerous part of a winding machine which resulted in a worker losing the second finger of his left hand which was crushed between the gears of the winding machine. A pea-sized sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- has been imposed upon the Manager concerned pleading guilty. The State has thereupon preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.2. The respondent original accused though served has not cared to appear. The endorsement made by him on the notice for enhancement is that he does not wish to engage any advocate. Under the circumstances, the matter has to be heard in his absence.3. In a matter of such a serious nature where a worker has lost his finger and where the Manager of the Fac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›